Citizens fight back against depraved anti-Semitic, homosexual musical play at high school

See the shocking VIDEO posted by citizens!

[CPOMA Editor’s Note] The following is courtesy of MassResistance, detailing the hypocrisy of much of the “so-called” diversity movement.  True diversity means to recognize the rights of the INDIVIDUAL under the law, and not to promote, or degrade, any group.  What we need is the media to actually report/investigate all sides of an issue, and report the facts, not an already determined conclusion to advance an agenda.

If you are a resident of Concord you should get to the Town Meeting, and be heard.  If you are not from there you should read the following (and the included video) as well.  This same thing could be coming to your town as well.

Even if you are an Anti-Semite or homosexual, it is still morally wrong to denigrate another group, while decrying the same thing.

To the Christian, or pro-family people out there:  Doesn’t it seem that only your view is considered to be “hate speech?”  Believe it or not, we still do have a right to speak, under the 1st Amendment.  Those rights are eroding, partly by the failure to exercise those rights.  It’s time to speak up, and educate those around you about the truth of these issues. – RJP


A vile, homosexual-themed anti-Semitic musical play that was performed at Concord-Carlisle High School (CCHS) in December 2009 is the subject of community outrage.

The high school has long been a center of aggressive homosexual indoctrination and the accompanying hostility toward religious belief. Intimidation of students and parents with traditional religious values has become an everyday occurrence there. Recently a group of CCHS teachers publicly “came out” as homosexuals and lesbians to a group of students – and encouraged the students to do the same — in a widely celebrated after-school event.

But this was possibly the most outrageous and insulting public activity ever by a Massachusetts high school. This was (according to press reports) the first time a high school had performed “Falsettos”, a vulgar homosexual-themed play that is blatantly anti-Semitic and mocking of the Jewish religion and its traditions. It’s hard to believe that anyone would even write something so hideous, much less have kids be a part of it. The play was directed by Peter Atlas, a long time homosexual activist and CCHS faculty member who was an early collaborator with GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings, currently Obama’s “Safe Schools” czar.

At the time of the play’s production, the MassResistance’s report on it caused enough waves in Concord that the Boston Globe’s local edition published a puff article celebrating the school’s production of the play.

Outrage from Orthodox rabbis

Last year Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the national Orthodox Rabbinical Alliance of America, sent a letter to the Concord Superintendent of Schools condemning the play and demanding an apology, after having been informed about it by the citizens group.

Unfortunately, the reaction from the Concord school officials and town officials has been condescending toward the Rabbi’s comments, and hostility and defiance toward the concerned citizens. The high school principal says that the play “It’s about love, it’s about caring . . . ” The Superintendent says that the play is about “diversity.”

Making a video to tell the story

But a group of Concord and Carlisle citizens find the play so overwhelmingly offensive that they are fighting back and taking on the town’s liberal establishment. Concord citizen Lee Ann Kay, whose two children went through Concord schools, is bravely leading the charge.

Lee Ann and some others meticulously produced a video exposing the depravities of the CCHS production and making a case for a vote of condemnation at the upcoming Town Meeting in late April.

VIDEO by Concord citizens, led by Lee Ann Kay, exposing this hideous school play for the upcoming Town Meeting.

An angry backlash from the liberal establishment has begun. Pro-gay and anti-religious activists innundated YouTube and persuaded them to remove it. But ultimately the play is indefensible The harder they try to defend the play, the more they try to demonize Lee Ann and the others, in a sense the weirder and more comical the liberals look.

This is a fight that needs to be fought. We applaud Lee Ann and her brave friends in Concord and Carlisle.

COMING UP: Wait till you see the video of Lee Ann Kay and another citizen attempting to discuss the play with the Concord-Carlisle School Committee. A display of unbelievable arrogance.


These people continue to defend this anti-Semitic trash:

Diana F. Rigby
Superintendent Of Schools
978.341.2490 X8112

Concord-Carlisle Regional School Committee

SPLC – Masters of Unreality

by Robert Picard

The Southern Poverty Law Center has recently released its report regarding “hate groups” in the United States.  On their web page, the main articles entitled, “U.S. Hate Groups Top 1,000,” SPLC editor Mark Potok is quick to jump out and say, …the most dramatic growth in the radical right came in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement. These conspiracy-minded organizations, which see the federal government as their primary enemy, grew by 61 percent over the previous year.”

Of course, Mr.  Potok does not mention any real “conspiracies” in the article.  What he does do is that he (along with others) is to call something which is perfectly normal and lawful hateful, or a conspiracy.

Case in point:  He is quick to point out the following (emphasis mine):

Mark Potok, SPLC

“Mainstream politicians have promoted many of the ideas and conspiracy theories important to these groups. Last April, for example, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1070, the harshest state anti-immigrant law in the country, setting off a flood of proposals for similar laws. State legislators also have offered proposals that would roll back birthright citizenship, bar judges from considering Islamic law in state courtrooms, institute an alternative currency, and even allow a state to disregard federal laws and regulations.”

Regarding Arizona’s “anti-immigration” law;  Does not that particular law only enforce the laws that are already in place?  There are elements in such State laws that could indeed be detrimental to some people.  But, these issues need to be dealt with on an individual basis.  That’s what this nation is about:  individual liberty and freedom!  Just think, if we did not have unlawful welfare programs already, we really would not have this issue to begin with.  I know that my grandparents came from different parts of the world – LEGALLY!  They did not come here for a hand-out, but for the freedom and liberty to live life to the fullest they could.  So, we do not have an immigration problem.  We have an “illegal” immigration problem, which was begun by a true conspiracy of tyrants desiring to break our country.  The bottom line is this.  Take away the motive for people to come illegally, and the problem will begin to be taken care of.

There have indeed been some legislators across the country that desire to roll back birthright citizenship.  This would be a grave mistake, because it would be unconstitutional.  The Fourteenth Amendment is there to protect those that were born in this country.  Again, the illegal hand-outs are the things to be eliminated, not the Constitutional precept.

I find it even stranger that this appears in the article:  bar judges from considering Islamic law in state courtrooms. So, let’s call for separation of church and state, not allow the mention of the name of Jesus Christ and God (upon our moral and civil law rests), even calling Christians hateful and homophobic!  But thinking that Islamic law is OK?  Me thinks this to be a strange double standard.

I guess something positive could come about from having Islamic law.  There wouldn’t be as many people illegally thrown in jail.  They’d be executed for marijuana possession!  A great way to cut government jobs – Take that Wisconsin!

Instituting an “alternative currency,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is also a conspiracy theory.  I must say that I do agree with that!  Our current FIAT monetary system IS an alternative currency.  It is alternative to real, sound, Biblical and Constitutional money.  Our financial (and spiritual) morass can be laid right on the feet of the founders of the Federal Reserve Bank (where are they on the list of “hate” groups?  Oh yeah.  I forgot they fund the SPLC, sending their constituents on the road to poverty).  Since 1913, the presses have been rolling on, and are at warp speed, spurring on inflation that will lead more people to the poor house, while the Wall St. megalomaniacs pay themselves off with lavishness (or should I say “lasciviousness”).

Constitutional money is the way to go.  Article 1, Section 8 0f the U.S. Constitution says this:

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Notice that it does not say “print.”  With Constitutional money there is no inflation.  The weight of the gold or silver is the same value, whether it be a domestic or foreign coin.  Imagine that!  The Fed could not just create “money from nothing,” and then charge the government and you the interest to use it.  Eventually you become “under water” with your mortgage, and the banks own the real property!  Conspiracy theories anyone?

In 1789 the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the value of the dollar by weight and fineness.  Eventually on April 2, 1792 the first Mint Act was passed under the present Constitution and the dollar and its value were finally defined.  The coinage act of 1792 established the following:

1.  Authorized coinage of the silver dollar (of the value of Spanish milled dollar) against the deposit of silver and fixed its weight at 371.25 grains of pure silver or 416 grains of standard silver;

2.  fixed the standard for silver coins as 1485/1664 (.8924) fine;

3.  fixed the coinage ratio of gold and silver as 1 to 15;

4.  provided for free coinage; and

5.  declared silver dollars (and all other coins authorized) lawful tender.

[The five points above were taken verbatim from the US Mint web site.  Notice that they refer to “silver dollars” as “lawful tender”, not “legal tender”.  The terms “legal” and “lawful” are not synonymous.]

The last thing I’ll point out is this.  The SPLC actually has the audacity to think that it is hateful or a conspiracy theory to  “…even allow a state to disregard federal laws and regulations.” I can only say one thing.  It’s the Tenth Amendment, Stupid!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is so simple that even a 6 year old child could even understand it.  The Constitution gives the federal government just a few duties.  These can be found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  I won’t quote it, but open up Google (or your favorite search engine), and type in these words – “article 1 section 8” – and you can find these “conspiratorial words!”

Yes, it is the duty, Mr. Potok, for the States to disregard (or disobey if you may) any law that is unconstitutional.  It is also lawful for the average Joe Citizen to do the same.

Bottom line:  The Constitutional viewpoint is not a “right wing” or “left wing” view.  It is indeed a truly centrist view.  The Constitutional view is not “anti-government,” but “pro-government” in a legal and moral sense.  Our Founding Fathers had the hindsight, insight and foresight to understand the creep of tyranny.

I am afraid that if people do not realize that liberty and freedom rest with the individual – being accountable to the  Creator, who gave us “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”  we will all be in trouble.

Writing about laws being made for, or against, certain groups, Frederic Bastiet said, “But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”